|
Post by horseguy on Oct 6, 2015 16:30:41 GMT
The background looks a lot like California to me. I suspect that was WW2 was approaching training films were at the top of many Army officer's list of things they would need. The Army employed various industries in preparation for war, I wonder if they went to Hollywood and the film industry for assistance in making these films.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 6, 2015 17:03:35 GMT
This is why I asked. Because it looks a lot like the country around me, which has been used by film makers for decades. I recognize the scenery.
I enjoyed watching them, and even learned a thing or two. It is close to what I was saying about an equestrian school for men. The instruction was serious and to the point, and didn't coddle anybody, or worry about someones feelings. He didn't berate, simply correct. You're doing it wrong, or you're doing it right. It was about training riders in a uniform way, organized and disciplined. It didn't try and sell horse psychology first. It didn't dwell on abstract notions or present deep insights or try to ooh and awe, or show off, or dazzle. I have known adults that have been studying natural horsemanship their whole lives, and still cannot master or comprehend the basics of riding.
I did notice that many of the horses were not comfortable and unstable with the bit. They showed irritation at the bit and tossed their heads in the double bridle. Even the instructors horse.I don't know why. The horses were higher headed than I like to see. Nevertheless, I would rather go there, than to a modern natural horsemanship clinic.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 7, 2015 13:50:09 GMT
I am going to scan or photograph the eleven pages on use of the reins in Chamberlin's book Riding and Schooling Horses. Beginning on page 129 of the Armored Cavalry Journal Press 1934 publication of the book it reads, "The following method of defining, in a general way, the five effects of the reins, is that adopted by the United States Cavalry, from the French Cavalry School at Saumur. These five effects are capable if an infinite number of variations, depending upon the exact amount and direction of the force applied, as well as upon the various combination of effects employed."
Chamberlin is referring to the French Cavalry manuals authored by de Sevey given to the US Army in 1914. It is also important to note that Chamberlin was a student at Saumur early in his Army career.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 8, 2015 14:44:26 GMT
I ordered Chamberlain's book from Amazon. I find it interesting learning how riding used to be taught. I like the rein positions. I like the effects of the reins. In these modern times, there is a lot of emphasis on steering the horse with your legs, as if the reins are merely there to correct the horse when he doesn't listen to your legs. This is actually the way Parelli horses are taught, and bridless horses. I think it is circus training, and not good circus either. I think its a waste of time. In our California Bridle horses, the tradition was a reined horse. He works primarily off the signal and action and position of the rein. The legs support the action. The legs create the jump, or go, when necessary. But he is a reined horse, not a legged horse. I noticed in one of the first films, the first instruction is to pick up your reins, and gather the horse, before preceding. This is not to say leg position is not important. It all goes together. But the use of the reins is so important. The horse needs to understand those separately from the legs. The reins are not there simply to correct the horse. That being said, I would like to have seen the fussiness to the bit addressed. A horse should be more comfortable and accepting of what is in his mouth. I wonder if in the cavalry back then, cadets did most of the riding, on young horses not fully trained? I think poor Irwin may have dropped out. He never seems to get it right!
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 9, 2015 13:47:14 GMT
Jimmy, you will enjoy that Chamberlin book. I find it dense with information and presented in a simple direct style that is very military in nature.
Barbara just posted about Chamberlin and Caprilli on her The Riding Instructor website. I left the following comment.
"As in many, if not all aspects of life, knowing history allows us to see "why" something changed and if that change was an improvement or a setback. Caprilli, Chamberlin and the other masters who have seen a better way have brought us here to how we ride today. There are also those who have innovated, found an audience and set riding and horsemanship back. In order to sort out the better from the lesser, we must have judgment and this is where teachers become invaluable.
If we take responsibility as teachers, we are, I feel, obligated to study and understand what we teach so that we can explain in greater depth what and why we offer in the way of riding instruction. It's not enough to say, "I teach English riding". By now that term has become so muddied and twisted as to be meaningless. We owe it to our students to explain from what part of equestrian history and thus method we can teach them how to ride well. Do we teach the George Morris method? The Military/Balanced Seat method? Dressage? Saddle Seat? Combinations? Interpretations? What? All of these could be called "English", and they are by some.
If an instructor wants to improve their teaching, then reading original books by historical masters is one way to gain greater insight into one's work as a teacher. For example, if you find yourself in an arena yelling "heels down", ask yourself why and maybe who initiated that saying. Chamberlin rode with his stirrup irons "home" with the front of his boot heels pressed against the irons. His feet were parallel to the ground... most of the time. He mentions "heels down" in downward transitions and includes bracing the back (read Wilhelm Museler on the braced back). In other words, Chamberlin writes about riding as a constantly changing process and with combinations of positions, forms, and balances. He describes the combinations of aids as infinitely variable. He gets us to the dynamic nature of riding with his books. It's exciting, and then sometimes we find ourselves leaning on a fence watching a lesson, hearing little more than "Heels down" for 45 minutes. Where are we in that incredible range of teaching?
Every student can understand to a large or small degree "why" we do something. If we study, we can explain why."
Barbara also has the U.S. Horsemanship website that is wonderful for anyone looking to gain a better understanding of truly traditional American horsemanship. My views are well known. I feel very strongly that America needs to deepen its level of horsemanship, and to counter the very commercial impulses of the "horse industry", particularly with regard to riding instruction. Over the past 20 to 30 years I have observed the rise of the Big Name Trainer, people like Parelli, Pony Boy, and others who have made fortunes on the newly invented EXPO circuit. Morris was the first and perhaps the least aware of the damage pandering to the riding student masses with limitless simplicity and repetition causes. Whether it's "do more round penning" or "heels down" or any of the trademark sayings from the BNT programs, they are not anywhere enough to maintain or improve American horsemanship. We as a country need to study and learn if we are to improve as a riding nation.
|
|
barbarafox
New Member
Riding Instructor for a long time
Posts: 11
|
Post by barbarafox on Oct 10, 2015 3:53:20 GMT
Dear Horseguy I'm not sure about the purpose of this particular thread, maybe you would clarify for me. If your point is that there are many methods of riding, I certainly agree with you. My efforts on U.S. Horsemanship are a tiny drop in the bucket as far as horsemanship in America is concerned. I chalk that up to being one person with a myriad of things to do and am probably one of the slowest blog posters I know. Perhaps someone like Jimmy would like to guest post a history of the reined horse. And I'd love to hear from some Monty Foreman lovers or someone who likes to write about rodeo, etc. But if the point of this post is to discuss the history of the Fort Riley Seat/Balanced Seat Method I'm afraid I have to take exception to some of the history you outlined. I agree that our American tradition began back at the Revolutionary War and its roots are essentially English but there is so much more to our history. Also the British Horse Society was established in 1947 and its motivating factor was horse welfare through education, not military. The Cavalry in America was hit and miss, numbers rising and falling with the need of the times. For the most part the training was left in the hands of what ever officer was in charge and as you say varied immensely. Any hand books were more concerned with drill than horsemanship. James Ottevere has a very informative book American Military Horsemanship which goes in to detail on all of this. Lucian Truscott wrote another interesting book The Twilight of the U.S. Cavalry. in 1881 the School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry began at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Then in 1887, also in Kansas a school began at Fort Riley. It became the Mounted Service School from 1907 (the year Caprilli died) through WW1. From 1919 through 1946 it was the Cavalry School. 1907 was also the year that Guy V. Henry, Jr. a West Point graduate graduated from the French Cavalry School at Saumur, France.Guy Henry did much to shape the direction of the Cavalry School at Fort Riley and the Army Olympic team. He was Chief of the Cavalry (1930-1934), Commandant of the Cavalry School (1935-1939)and FEI President. He was a director for the American Horse Shows Association(now USEF) as well as the United States Equestrian Team. He was chef d’equipe for the US teams(1936-1948), and chairman of the Olympic Equestrian Committee (1930-1960). The 1912 French Cavalry Manual was put in use for the Service School beginning in 1913 and played a role in the writing of the 3 Volume “Horsemanship and Horsemastership” for Fort Riley Cavalry School in 1935. Chamberlin was one of the men that put these volumes together. The riding portions of Horsemanship and Horsemastership show the influence of both the French Cavalry and the Italian forward methods, the Italian method showing particularly when it comes to the description of the seat. From 1923-1933 the Army sent 10 Cavalry officers to the Italian Cavalry School. Chamberlin was the first. As far as the perversions to the Fort Riley seat go - they began when Gordon Wright produced his book The Cavalry Manual of Horsemanship and Horsemastership (and Learning to Ride, Hunt, and Show) which is Wright's edited version of the real Cavalry Manuals. Wright began be redefining the base of support. And as far as the crest release goes it was introduced by Littauer in 1938 in Littauer’s “More About Forward Riding” . It's true that Morris named it and refined it (if one can use the term refine in relation to crest release) but Morris built on foundations that were already laid (he even admits to not being original) and added a few more tweaks of his own, in particular his definition of base of support. Without a good base of support a person needs something to hang on to the horse with and it may as well be the crest release or even around the neck as anything else. I'm not sure that Morris' teaching did that much more damage to American riding than did Littauer whose whole goal was to make it easier for the average person to ride and enjoy horses. The ANRC (Paul Cronin, Bernie Traurig, Intercollegiate) is based on Littauer's work. One can not remark about the formidable USET in the 60s and 70s with out acknowledging the contribution of Hungarian, Bert de Nemethy . He coached the American international riders and many national riders from 1955-1980 and had a profound effect on our riding style and our success. By the time he'd been on the scene for a little while the USET was no longer using the pure Fort Riley Seat. Many apologies if you were not intending to head down this path for this thread. Nobody has stronger feelings about the influence Morris had on riding in America (an now worldwide) than I do. I watched him trot on to Long Island where I was showing as a kid (with the goal of mastering the following hand over fences). I fought the trend as a young instructor when riders could not win equitation unless they had a short or long crest release (which were named backwards for my taste and I continually mix them up). And I really don't care for fluffy white saddle pads! But I don't think we give history justice if we focus on this without acknowledging that there were a lot of other things going on during that time as well. There were a lot of things taught in the fifties and 60s that were misunderstood and incorrect and certain parts of the Fort Riley Seat and Caprilli I do not agree with. Much of it comes from the lack of the ability for writers to put feeling into words and other parts may not have evolved far enough from Caprilli who had such limited time to prove out his theories. Just a couple of other notes- it is pretty much impossible to put your heels down effectively with your foot run home in the stirrups. Feet home in the stirrups prevents a certain elasticity in the rider. Also it's interesting to note that both the French Cavalry Manual and the Cavalry Horsemanship and Horsemastership manuals instruct on lunging, even lunging over jumps. Anyone who reads this and would like to have their own French Cavalry Manual can go to www.ushorsemanship.com, sign up for the newsletter and receive their own copy. Also the site has many articles on topics related to crest release, base of support, Fort Riley, Morris, Henry, Chamberlin and Caprilli. I so agree with you about the dangers of saying I ride English or I ride western without understanding what it is you ride. It's interesting that not everyone went the way of Caprilli, Chamberlin, forward or balanced. The was much opposition to the changes in riding and the opposition went their own direction and did not die off. We see it glaringly in Saddle Seat riding and certain dressage riding and variations in many of the breed competitions. I think we see more and more pre Caprilli seat in dressage and cross country every year. That too is devolving. I'll end with a quote from Harry Chamberlin's book Riding and Schooling, "As the forelegs leave the ground it is best to allow all contact to vanish, except that maintained by the weight of the reins. The reins may have even a slight sag in them immediately after the forelegs leave the ground, during the period of suspension, and when landing." OK well I hope I don't have too many mis-spellings or incidences of wrong word usage!!!
|
|
barbarafox
New Member
Riding Instructor for a long time
Posts: 11
|
Post by barbarafox on Oct 10, 2015 3:54:17 GMT
From what I have been told by my friends at the Military Horse, the leads in these films were actors.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 10, 2015 22:35:57 GMT
... if the point of this post is to discuss the history of the Fort Riley Seat/Balanced Seat Method I'm afraid I have to take exception to some of the history you outlined. I agree that our American tradition began back at the Revolutionary War and its roots are essentially English but there is so much more to our history. Also the British Horse Society was established in 1947 and its motivating factor was horse welfare through education, not military. Barbara, we need to make you forum historian. My purpose was to give a broad brush outline of US military riding and I freely admit to deemphasizing the earlier history of the Mounted Service School. I have read the books you mentioned and those along with several others can paint a confusing and sometimes conflicting picture of the early days of the formation of a singular Army riding method. Very simplistically can we agree there was the beginning, starting with the Revolutionary War where The First City Troop (Philadelphia) was the first mounted "US" unit, then dragoons (ride to battle and fight dismounted) and limited cavalry from the War of 1812 to the Civil War, then lots of not so great cavalry during the Civil War through the Spanish American War, all of which used a British style regimental method of training American cavalry? The regimental training from the Revolution through the Civil and Spanish American Wars was profoundly uneven, irregular and included no training at all in some cases.
There are some wonderfully interesting details and deviations from my simplistic British regimental method summary, such as Casimir Pulaski's contribution to training mounted troops. I once held in my had an original training manual with cavalry elements he wrote for General Washington and the Continental Army. We had this uneven regimental training system until after the Spanish American War with lots of outlier hooligan bands, troops and rangers comprised of sometimes oddly trained troops. Fremont's mounted soldiers in California and the Rough Riders are some very interesting examples. All and all it's kind of a messy history and to describe it thoroughly would take more words than forum readers are willing to wade through, I think.
I would describe a transition period from the generally irregular 19th century regimental training method to a centralized system around the turn of the 20th century. This transition was very small and often ineffective because it was so top-down in the form of the Mounted Service School. However, some riders at the top of this system transition became amazing riders and showed the future that would come later. Then finally in my summary broad brush description I would describe a third period of moving into a truly centralized system based at Fort Riley at the beginning of the 20th century where de Sevey's manuals seemed to have a coalescing effect on the training. This transition resulted in a significant leap forward in the quality of US Cavalry. Then finally I would summarize saying that Harry Chamberlin essentially rewrote the French manuals and brought US riding to the highest level by the 1930's. Then there were machine guns and barbed wire and that was the end.
I admit I am running all this through my brain in memory that is far from perfect, but I think in a few paragraphs we need to let people know something of the evolution of our American mounted military origins and the height it reached before the horse became obsolete.
Lastly, I believe there was a bit of a military connection to the origins of BHS Pony Club in that cavalry officers were instrumental in starting that movement. Coincidently, the PC Manual of Horsemanship
is the same size, and bears the same title as the British Cavalry manual, except the Army version is red and more "adult".
Thank you for addressing the historic details in depth. It's been years since I have read much of what I am "quoting" and I am too lazy often to go to the book shelves and pull out a volume to check myself, but I enjoy the discussion so much.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Nov 6, 2015 18:07:35 GMT
There is no replacement for knowledge when it comes to riding. I have had many gifted students over my teaching riding career who just could get on a horse and with only a few pointers could feel unity with their horse and ride well in a short time, but even they eventually found they needed a deeper intellectual understanding of riding to progress beyond a certain point. A lot of understanding can be gained from reading master rider's books. Here is a list of authors I prefer.
Harry Chamberlin Étienne Beudant Wilhelm Museler Noel Jackson Vladimir Littauer Waldemar Seunig Reiner Klimke M.F. McTaggart S.G. Goldschmidt Paul Holmelund Piero Santini R.S. Timmis Geoffrey Brooke Sally Swift
I think there are ten countries represented on this list. All are military officers, except maybe one or two. These books were written in the military style, very to the point, except perhaps Seunig, who reads like you are eating heavy fudge. The list is light on dressage, although most listed here were great dressage riders but more focused on field riding, as that was their military "business". I have listed them in the order of my personal preference.
Some have very unique in-depth insights in a specific area. For example, McTaggart's understanding of striding to a jump is quite special. He believes, and I agree, a good horse lengthens his stride somewhat in the approach, but also collects in terms of gaining impulsion. This seems a paradox, but I can feel it in a very good horses. I thank him for giving words to a very difficult to grasp and express moment in riding. Likewise, all these riders offer gems of insight that can dramatically increase our understanding. The list represents only a fraction of the great authors/riders/trainers in the military seat tradition.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Dec 27, 2015 22:58:26 GMT
This topic went off into a historical direction and Barbara corrected my shabby history posts. I have been thinking about that, and in doing so I remembered why I started this forum. I learned to ride from a man who rode in the U.S. Army. I learned riding from him and he taught in the manner that the Army taught. I was 6 years old when started receiving instruction from my gray haired veteran teacher. I never had the sense, being young then, to ask him where he learned or what regiment he was in. Later in my life I became interested and began to study U.S. military riding from a historical perspective, but that's not the most important thing for me. It's the riding that is important. What I have to offer here is not historical. My offer is about the riding itself. My teacher was probably in his 60's or 70's in 1953, which means he was born in the 1880's to the 1890's. That would have put him in the Army before or around the time of WW1 and after the formation of the Mounted Service School at Fort Riley where the French Saumur manuals were the standard. I began riding with him ten years after the U.S. Army dismounted the Calvary. At that time many former Cavalry riders started riding schools, often called troops, to continue the Fort Riley Seat method because they believed the Army would come t its senses and return the horse to a combat role. The New Canaan Mounted Troop is one of those troops and it is still in existence, started in 1939 when the Army threatened to dismount its troops and mechanize. The basis of Army instruction was the "Follow Me" ride. The Fort Riley instructional method is about miles in the saddle, not catch phrases like "heels down". You had to get stable in the saddle, or in other words develop a degree of unity with your horse before you received much instruction on technique. Today, common riding instruction is the other way around. It's all technique and forms and very little focus on practical unity in the beginning. In a Follow Me ride the instructor rode in front and yo followed. It was over terrain in groups in a column (today called a line). Mr. Gratwick, who wore a fresh pressed khaki uniform (no insignia) each day, lead the rides. He occasionally looked back to see who was still with him. We were boys 6 years old to 10 years old (he did not teach women or girls) covering ground in all terrain variations from slides to open fields and from thick woods to creeks. We crossed whatever was in our path. An older more advanced student followed up the rear to collect stragglers and dismounted riders. The horses were all very competent. I was given a small TB to ride but there was a mix of breeds in the lesson string. So again, Barbara I am sorry I am not a very good U.S. Cavalry historian. She is and she hosts U.S. Horsemanship. It's a great website. There is also The Society of the Military Horse, which I find to be a site full of information on equipment, horse types, and everything except riding using the Fort Riley Seat. Its a great place to find out which buttons were sewn onto which cavalry coat and when. I don't go there. But this forum is about riding in the U.S. Military Seat also known as the Fort Riley Seat. I learned it and I do not want it to be forgotten. I don't care that much about what the military riders wore or when they did this or that, so I give you the other sites in case you do. I am getting old. All the actual Cavalry riders are not gone, and soon the riders who learned from the military riders will be gone too. Therefore, as long as I am here, I will share what I know, however second hand that might be.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Dec 28, 2015 17:12:42 GMT
In the 1970's George Morris, who was trained in the Fort Riley Seat by Gordon Wright, introduced his Hunter Seat Equitation to America, which he saw as a simplified version of then contemporary American riding. The primary changes Morris introduced were the restriction of riding to a flat, fenced arena with evenly groomed footing. This was in sharp contrast to the context of the Fort Riley Seat, which was based in completely unrestricted riding over any and all terrain, footing and obstacles. Additionally, Morris' new Hunter Seat Equitation came with assumptions that the riders were showing off their horse in much the same way dogs are shown at dog shows, as opposed to The Fort Riley Seat, which was a combat riding method with a very wide range of military mission requirements from firing a pistol, using a saber and other fighting skills from the saddle to the transport of heavier weapons to military engagements with the enemy. Morris made extensive changes to the American riding method, most of which were enabled by the very limited setting of his brand of riding. The flat even footing combined with a fenced area and jumps that fell down on impact made possible the crest release, something no sane rider would employ, for example, in a jump over an solid natural obstacle on a downward slope, not to mention in difficult footing. This crest release change and many others like it, all oddly labeled "Hunter" regardless of the fact that his techniques would be dangerous in a fox hunt, became the predominant method of U.S. riding by the 1980's. Why? I think because Morris' method was so oversimplified that learning to ride became a much shorter and easier process, even though the students were not really learning how to ride by any previous standard or definition. George Morris by the 1990's had established his new method as the US standard of riding. By now we have had multiple generations learn and then teach the Morris method to the point where the American riding public now simply calls the Morris method "English riding", which bothers the English no end. Thankfully, after decades of this Morris "lite beer" kind of riding, the his method is losing its appeal due to the rise of interest in eventing and the increasing lack of luster in common horse shows. After the Supreme Court Title IX decision in 1972, that required equal athletic programs in high schools and colleges for males and females, we now have genuinely equal boy and girl athletes in the U.S. who apparently want more than the dress-up pretend riding the Morris show method offers. The problem is now that there are insufficient instructors in the Fort Riley Seat to address this qualitative change in student appetite for higher quality riding. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the few qualified military seat teachers in America. Most are reaching retirement age now, while a whole new generation of Morris method young instructors are teaching the flawed Hunter Seat Equitation method to the next crop of young riders.
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Dec 29, 2015 14:23:27 GMT
I posted this image in the above post. In the Hunter/Jumper thread I posted this. The contrast between the two jumping positions is extreme. The military rider is doing two things, riding & jumping, and leading a pack horse with equipment. He is in a position to direct his horse when he lands, should there be a hole or a dangerous object on the ground in his path. He is ready. The show rider is in a position that would limit her ability to direct her horse upon landing. It would require at least one stride to position herself as an active rider able to direct her horse on the other side of the jump. This is one of the major differences between the Military Seat and the Morris show Seat. The Military Set rider has more uninterrupted control.
|
|